G.R. No. 238873 , September 16, 2020
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SUNDARAM MAGAYON Y FRANCISCO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FACTS

Following a buy-bust operation, appellant Sundaram Magayon was arrested. Police officers, claiming to have a search warrant, then searched his residence in the presence of barangay officials and media representatives. The search yielded numerous sachets of marijuana. A Certificate of Inventory was prepared and signed by the witnesses and the appellant. He was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The trial court acquitted him of illegal sale due to insufficient evidence, notably the lack of marking and inventory of the item from the buy-bust. However, it convicted him for illegal possession of 381.3065 grams of marijuana, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
The ponencia (majority decision) upheld the conviction. It primarily relied on statements from Magayon’s counter-affidavits during preliminary investigation, interpreting them as a voluntary confession to possessing the seized drugs. It also ruled that despite deviations from the chain of custody procedure under Republic Act No. 9165 , the integrity and identity of the drug evidence were preserved.

ISSUE

Did the appellant’s statements in his counter-affidavits constitute a confession of guilt for illegal possession of the entire volume of seized drugs, and were the chain of custody irregularities properly excused?

RULING

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Caguioa argued for acquittal. On the first issue, he contended that the appellant’s sworn statements did not amount to a confession. A confession requires an express acknowledgment of guilt for the crime charged. The cited statements—that the marked money found on his partner came from him, and that the drugs were for his “personal use”—were at best mere admissions of incidental facts, not a categorical acknowledgment of owning or possessing all 381.3065 grams of marijuana. The statement on personal use was ambiguous and did not specify the volume he admitted to possessing.
Regarding the chain of custody, the dissent highlighted critical lapses. The inventory was conducted at the appellant’s residence, but the required photographing of the seized items was not done at the place of seizure. The prosecution failed to offer any justifiable reason for this deviation from the mandatory procedure under Section 21 of RA 9165. Furthermore, the testimony revealed that the investigating officer who received the evidence from the seizing officer did not immediately mark it upon receipt, creating another gap in the chain. These unexcused breaches compromised the integrity of the evidence, creating reasonable doubt as to whether the marijuana presented in court was the same substance seized from the appellant. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.